BlogHer - Open Thread: Democratic Debate in Los Angeles Tonight - Comments

I was discussing this tax

Dana J. Tuszke — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:51:10 -0600

I was discussing this tax the rich scenario with my father, and he's against raising taxes for one group of tax payers over another. After our discussion on the phone, he sends me this e-mail (meant to be a joke, I think):

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

not necessary but thank you!

Jill Miller Zimon — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:38:21 -0600

And when I visit there this summer, I will definitely report back on this issue! :) We'll be staying in hotels and hostels throughout the country so I should get a good flavor no pun intended of what's allowed and out there.

Thanks again Suzanne.
Jill
Writes Like She Talks

More talking about Dana

Maria Niles — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:08:00 -0600

As if she isn't here - sorry, Dana!

I agree with your broader point but, Dana does regularly reference her Catholic/religious views with regard to abortion. Just a few comments up she mentioned "faith" "Catholic" and "religious":

but my faith is guiding me against that. I'm Catholic and pro-life, I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate that doesn't seem to give two cents about my religious values.

However, I did appreciate her later explanation that her views are formed also out of intensely personal feelings she says she would hold even if she were Atheist, which I think is the more pertinent reference. Especially given that the views she expressed on taxes and immigration on this thread (and if, like the majority of Americans, she supports the death penalty) are very much in opposition to her church. Clearly Dana is more than capable of forming her own views apart from her religion so, Denise, I think you are correct to suggest we not automatically label ethical disagreement as religious disagreement.

Give me a break, Suzanne.

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:22:50 -0600

Give me a break, Suzanne. No one forces women to have sex either. And I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about the lack of responsibility that gets women into these so-called "difficult situations" every time they have unprotected sex.

And it's not lack of birth control that's the problem. The Guttenmacher institute reports that 54% of unplanned pregnancies are conceived despite the use of contraceptives.

It's a selfish act. Women want to be free to have sex with whomever they want wherever the want but they don't want to accept the responsibility of parenthood. And I don't buy this excuse that women don't want to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. If they really do not want to get pregnant, they will use more than one method of birth control or they won't have sex.

Abortion is used too much as a method of birth control and it has to stop. Abortion is not liberating women. It's not doing anything for feminism. It's tying women to a lifetime of guilt and pain but no one wants to face it.

Religion or not, abortion is just a legal way to commit murder. Sounds harsh? It should. It's a harsh violent act.

Revising my statement on kosher restaurants in Jerusalem...

Suzanne Reisman — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:58:23 -0600

I got a friendly email from Jill letting me know that she lived in Jerusalem a few years ago, and did not remember that there was a law requiring restaurants to be kosher. I was there two years ago, and I swear that this is what my cousins (who are Israeli) told me, so I did more research. I called the Israeli tourist office and asked, and the woman on the phone told me that as far as she knows, not all restaurants are required to be kosher by law, although she thought it was possible that this was the case in the Jewish section of the old quarter. Apologies for the likely inaccuracy, although I think my point stands.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

McCain vs. a Dem nominee

Marilyn — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:12:06 -0600

There are more of us out here than you think...but the opposite. :)

The Land of Moo

Co-Founder of Bloggers for Darfur

Morra, I think it is my deal

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:58:46 -0600

Morra, I think it is my deal breaker. I wish that wasn't the case. I wish I didn't have to think about abortion or ESCR during this election process. But it's part of who I am and I think that's reason enough to wait it out until I'm sure.

Not necessarily about religion

Denise — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:30:18 -0600

It's about individual ethics that too many people are too quick to wrap the "religion" label around.

I don't believe Dana, in particular (Hi Dana, thanks for letting us dissect you!), is anti-choice solely because of her religious beliefs. She's explained why she is anti-choice and rarely does the word "God" or the word "religion" appear in her explanation.

We need to stop being so quick to label every ethical disagreement as a religious disagreement. (We meaning both liberals and conservatives, Christians and non-Christians. Not just me and Suzanne and Dana, heh.)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

This is about religion, not science, anyway

Suzanne Reisman — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:04:10 -0600

I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but it really upsets me to think that I should be forced to follow the religious beliefs of other people.

Hindus believe that eating animal flesh is a horrific sin. Using your definition of why abortion should be illegal, eating meat, eggs, chicken, fish, and any other living, breathing critter should be against the law. What about the animals' rights? Why should we destroy perfectly good animals for our whimsies and personal preferences?

It's a truly slippery slope. I'm fairly certain that most of us here would be very upset if we were forced by law to be vegans because a large international religion insisted that it is wrong to do otherwise. Who decides which religious practices we must force everyone to follow? Why yours and not mine or why mine (should it be illegal to eat non-kosher meat or drink milk with meat because God said so. In Jerusalem, every restaurant must be kosher. If you don't keep kosher and want a cheeseburger, too bad for you.)?

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Scientists don't say that

Suzanne Reisman — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:38:13 -0600

That's not exactly what scientists say. If we start arguments with such loaded terminology, no, we won't ever come to an agreement.

The way I look at it is this: I don't believe that conception grants full human rights to a developing fetus. You do. That means I will never force you to do anything to stop the ongoing development. You can live in accordance with your beliefs that it is wrong to terminate, and that is your right and I will not judge you for that. What I ask for in return is to be allowed to live according to my beliefs. Just as I would never force anyone to have an abortion - although I think it is wrong to bring children into this world if we are not prepared to provide them with the necessities of life (and let's acknowledge that there are a large number of "un-adoptable" children right now, so every child who is born is not going to be scooped up by loving parents) - I do not believe that others have the right to force me to carry an pregnancy to term. Because pregnancy is inherently risky, I believe as strongly as you do that it is a moral sin to force anyone to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

Legal abortion forces no one to do anything. It allows people to live their lives under their own religious and moral authorities. Making abortion illegal says that I must live by your religion. Period.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Is pro-life your "dealbreaker"?

Morra Aarons Mele — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:23:08 -0600

I understand that. Pro choice used to be a deal breaker for me, but now, I think a commitment to the environment and a sensible foreign policy take precedence. For example, McCain is pro-life, but he has a sensible commitment to the environment. So I could vote for him on that account. BUT: his foreign policy ideals are, to my mind, a disaster. So that's a dealbreaker.

It's all very complicated. I understand your dilemma, Dana, and I'm so glad you're thinking through it and talking openly about it! I think a lot of Dems are facing a similar dilemma: Obama or Hillary? It is so hard.

Another like me!

Denise — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:18:57 -0600

I'm in shock. I've found another democrat considering McCain if our democratic candidate is Obama.

Thank goodness, I'm no longer alone. I'm sitting next to ByJane.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

That's the dilemma I face.

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:56:44 -0600

That's the dilemma I face. I can't possibly vote Democrat knowing what I know. However, the Republicans aren't doing any better. Even though the GOP candidates are pro-life, their plans for immigration, the economy, health care, maternal rights, family rights and more -- really suck. (Or they're non-existent. Like the last two issues.)

I'm certainly not going to choose one of them just because they are against abortion. If I'm going to be forced to choose between the lesser of four evils (well, three, because Ron Paul isn't so bad. Annoying, but not terrible. Unfortunately he's not that popular and probably won't win the nomination), then my vote is given in vain. These four need to earn that vote. Just like Barack and Hillary would.

Not saying the unborn aren't important.

lauriewrites — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:48:49 -0600

I don't like abortion and I don't believe that I would ever have one, so I don't need to be sold on the value of life. It's very much a "there but for the grace of God go I" situation. And debating that wasn't really the point of my comment (as I consider it a very polarizing and generally useless discussion, frankly. People who believe strongly on one side or another generally have their reasons, and they run deep enough to not be dissuaded.)

My point is that if the pro-life issue is that central for you, voting Democrat at all would be tough if you wanted to stick to that. No Dem candidate is going to run on the promise of seriously restricting or rescinding abortion rights.

Likewise, I wouldn't vote for a socially conservative candidate, especially not after seeing the abuses in these areas for the past eight years.

Laurie

Laurie, I am grateful for

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:56:12 -0600

Laurie, I am grateful for your comments. I too, love this exchange. But even if I were atheist, I would still be pro-life.

Perhaps because I've given birth and I look at my son and think, how could any woman destroy a life, knowing that what's inside them is a tiny human? That tiny human was alive the moment he was conceived.

Why is my son's life more important than the lives of the unborn (or pre-born as they are calling babies in utero now). Is it simply because my son was wanted? The unborn are just as important as you and me.

A year after Dawson was born, I got pregnant at a not so convenient time and though for sure my husband and I would never be able to afford two kids so close together. Not once did the though cross my mind to terminate the pregnancy because I wasn't ready to have another child. I had sex. I knew the risks. I most certainly took responsibility for my actions. That baby was a gift. Unfortunately, I had a miscarriage days later and I still grieve that loss.

I try and try not to get emotional about it, but as I type this, the tears flow and flow. 3 million aborted babies every year....

Open Thread: Democratic Debate in Los Angeles Tonight

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:48:23 -0600

Live from Los Angeles, the Democratic Presidential Debate on CNN will be held at the Kodak Theater on Hollywood Boulevard tonight at 8 p.m. ET.

The final Democratic Primary debate of the season, CNN and The Los Angeles times are co-hosting this last forum which will lead into Super Tuesday.

Pajamas Media writes about the old days of California debates:

Before we finally became a part of Super Cowabunga Tuesday, this is how campaign season basically went: Presidential hopefuls would show up just long enough to snag a Randy’s donut and fistfuls of cash. Wasting no time on the little people and going straight for the moguls, candidates treated California as little more than a political ATM, stopping by just often enough to make the maximum withdrawal.

It's a bigger deal tonight, because John Edwards' exit from the race has narrowed the Democratic playing field leaving Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois to battle against each other.

Forbes Blogger Paul M. Murdock writes:

Edwards failed to win a single caucus or primary but had promised he would be in the campaign until the end. His change of heart comes as something of a surprise, but helps focus the Democratic race. The rhetoric of the race will likely continue to escalate in tomorrow night’s Democratic debate between Clinton and Obama.

Mirror on America writes:

Overshadowed since the outset by two so-called celebrity candidates, Edwards struggled to keep up with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton financially, falling behind in a media war that painted a two-person race.

Yes, the media is having a field day with their clever way of only highlighting what they want America to see. It seems as though they are painting a picture in pairs.

Rudy Giuliani also announced his withdrawal from the Republican race, but there are still four GOP candidates remaining. However, during the Republican debate last evening, John McCain and Mitt Romney seemed do more attacking of each other's records than debating, while Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul sat quietly, waiting for their turn to speak.

BlogHer's own Erin Kotecki Vest and Katy Chen were to attend last night's GOP debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, only to have their security clearances denied by the LAPD because they "don't do online" media.

Tonight, however, Erin and Katy will be at the Kodak Theater to cover this exciting Democratic debate.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

Thursday night's Democratic debate at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland is one hot ticket. Maybe it's the prospect of seeing the Democratic field winnowed to the two remaining candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, so close to Super Tuesday and the California primary. Maybe it's the prospect of a fiery debate. Or maybe it's the fact that Thursday's event could be the biggest star-studded spectacle so far this year at the Kodak, which next month will host the Oscars -- maybe.

Join us in an open discussion as we watch the remaining Democratic candidates debate the issues. Will Clinton and Obama play fair, or will they duke it out for media hype?

Please share your comments and links as we watch this must-see event!